Covaci (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-216/14 (15 October 2015)

Covaci (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-216/14 (15 October 2015)

Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU do not preclude national legislation requiring objections to penalty orders to be lodged in the language of the proceedings, provided the competent authorities do not consider such an objection to be an essential document requiring translation. Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EUECJ C-216/14
Parties
Accused: Mr Covaci; Prosecutor: Traunstein Public Prosecutor’s Office
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (criminal) / Reference for Preliminary Ruling From Amtsgericht Laufen (local Court, Laufen) to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Outcome
Preliminary ruling issued; national legislation not precluded by EU law under specified conditions.
Legal Topics
Right to Interpretation and Translation, Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings, Service of Documents, Language of Proceedings, Rights of Defence
Criminal Law European Union Law Procedural Law Right to Interpretation and Translation Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings Service of Documents Language of Proceedings Rights of Defence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Covaci

Accused

Traunstein Public Prosecutor’s Office

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (criminal) / Reference for Preliminary Ruling From Amtsgericht Laufen (local Court, Laufen) to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Articles 1(2) and 2(1) and (8) of Directive 2010/64/EU preclude national law requiring objections to penalty orders to be lodged only in the language of the court
  2. 2 Whether Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU preclude requiring non-resident accused to appoint a person authorised to accept service, with appeal periods running from service on that person

Ratio Decidendi

Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU do not preclude national legislation requiring objections to penalty orders to be lodged in the language of the proceedings, provided the competent authorities do not consider such an objection to be an essential document requiring translation. Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU do not preclude requiring a non-resident accused to appoint a person authorised to accept service, provided the accused has the benefit of the full period for lodging an objection.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling issued; national legislation not precluded by EU law under specified conditions.

Orders

  • Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU do not preclude national legislation requiring objections to penalty orders to be lodged in the language of the proceedings, unless the objection is deemed an essential document by competent authorities.
  • Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU do not preclude requiring a non-resident accused to appoint a person authorised to accept service, provided the accused has the full period for objection.